United States: Washington Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Cities Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Hmmm. No mention of the Sara Community?

Sara is a community or populated place (Class Code U6) located in Clark County at latitude 45.752 and longitude -122.713 (Sara Panoramio Photos). The elevation is 135 feet. Sara appears on the Ridgefield U.S. Geological Survey Map. Clark County is in the Pacific time zone (GMT -8).

http://washington.hometownlocator.com/wa/clark/sara.cfm

Sara is in between the heart of Ridgefield and the Clark County Fairgrounds, so if the Clark County Fairgrounds can be considered as "in Ridgefield" then so should the community of Sara.

Doubledragons (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgefield was two towns, basically, from what I can tell, the town of Sara, and the town of Union Ridge. Union Ridge is mentioned, but Sara is not. And from what I can tell, the entire area was called Cathlapotle before it was called anything else, but the only mention of Cathlapotle is the Cathlapotle plankhouse in what is now known as the "Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge." Just F.Y.I. for anyone who has the time to edit this article with the proper sources.

Doubledragons (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ridgefield, Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121115232718/http://www.census.gov:80/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ridgefield, Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721034521/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_GCTPL2.ST13&prodType=table to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_GCTPL2.ST13&prodType=table
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added details on the park that was cut from other pages due to the size of those pages.[1] This will reference the information with background details and give an idea as to the process that lead to the markers being placed on this private land. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2007, a plot of private land in Ridgefield directly adjoining busy Interstate 5 was purchased for $15,000 by the Pacific Northwest chapter of Sons of Confederate Veterans, a nonprofit whose members have ancestral ties to Confederate soldiers. Three Confederate flags fly at "Jefferson Davis Park", along with two stone markers honoring Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy. ^[1] Stone markers had come from both ends of the state designating Highway 99 the "Jeff Davis Highway" were erected in the 1930s by the Daughters of the Confederacy, with State approval. They were removed in 2002 through the efforts of State Representative Hans Dunshee and city officials, and after it was discovered that the highway was never officially designated to memorialize Davis by the State.^[2] Clark County Historic Preservation Commission in attendance — Mark Pelletier, Sarah Fox, Sean Denniston, Rob Heaney and Alex Gall — all voted to remove the granite highway marker from its local heritage list on October 2, 2017.^[3]

• • @John from Idegon:, please explain what is not well sourced??? Everything posted is sourced and was removed from the List of Confederate Monuments page to reduce it's context to the minimum because of the size of that page. It links to the Ridgefield page, where all documentation is included in more detail.

Additional references available: [2] [3] [4] [5]

1. Kindly format your references consistently and completely.
2. Frankly, what you have written makes very little sense.
3. Neither Wikipedia itself or anything hosted on WordPress.com is ever going to be a reliable source.
4. What is "crosscut"?

From what I make if your edit, a notable organization (SOC) purchased land and erected a monument. Some sort of something was moved there at some time, and recently some other group with no direct connection to this community voted to change some unspecified status of whatever was moved. So why does this belong in this article? If you could possibly write something parsable, it "may" (subject to local consensus there) be a suitable addition to the article on the highway you linked. John from Idegon (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you for your interest,but it was not my edit. The current section[6] list the outline of Jefferson Davis Park being purchased. Such things as why it was bought and what was moved there, and why the 'Three Confederate flags fly' there; these are missing from the current section. It is important as it has made both regional[7][8] and national news[9][10], and is among the two listed monuments on private land in the state that are Confederate war memorials (the other is in Seattle)[11].C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You see, the Jefferson Davis Park, which was purchased by the Northwest Chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans(SCV), was done specifically for the purpose of displaying the stone markers from Vancouver and later Blaine Washington that had been removed in the early 2000s once it was discovered that the state never officially declared Hwy99 through the state as Jefferson Davis Highway.[12] This is still a controversial issue in the local area[13] and noteworthy for it's position in the middle of the current debate[14][15]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now "Crosscut.com is a nonprofit, online newspaper based in Seattle, Washington,United States. Crosscut's stated purpose is to "produce journalism in the public interest".[1] Its content is mainly news analysis rather than breaking news like other online newspapers or blogs." according to wikipedia.[16]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now as for WordPress.com, it is where the SCV host there page and they are reliable in as much as they give the views of the local chapter that bought the land, and maintain Jefferson Davis Park. They are reliable in as much as it is their direct view of why they built the park[17] and not for anything else. It is used in the List of memorials to Jefferson Davis[18] so it should be good enough for this article as well.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything incorrect in the propose change that would cause you to again delete it?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be best to name it for the park that the land was used for, that is Jefferson Davis Park. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, what about naming what the 'land' is currently, it's the Jefferson Davis Park according to the sources provided [19], so why not name it as well as the section?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be better to have Jefferson Davis Park better sourced than just one; could we not add additional references given then issues surrounding the park. I would recommend: ^[1][2] But please supply others. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding the sentences: "Stone markers had come from both ends of the state designating Highway 99 the Jefferson Davis Highway were erected in the 1930s by the Daughters of the Confederacy, with State approval. They were removed in 2002 through the efforts of State Representative Hans Dunshee and city officials, and after it was discovered that the highway was never officially designated to memorialize Davis by the State." with references[20][21] And "Clark County Historic Preservation Commission on October 2, 2017, voted unanimously to remove the granite highway marker from its local heritage list." with reference [22]

The current section does not explain why the private park was established or the controversy surrounding it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for consensus?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Remove the entire section. A small private park that's only significance is its involvement in the current hysteria over Confederate monuments is not significant to the overall understanding of this community. Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. John from Idegon (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the issues surrounding the Jefferson Davis Highway markers began in 1998 with the Vancouver city council, when they removed the stone. It again became an issue in 2001, and again in 2006 when it was removed from public land for the last time. Thus the park was built in 2007 for the purpose of displaying the marker and for the education of confederate heritage. Later the marker from Blane was added, but as you read all the reference materials, you already know all this, User:John from Idegon. Thanks for the input, but this is not a recent issue, here in Washington State. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It still has little to nothing of significance to do with this community and is definitely WP:COATRACK. John from Idegon (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so as the local chapter of the North West Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans bought this local land. in their community,along I-5 and placed the flags and markers facing I-5, back in 2007 for the express purpose of creating this local 'Jefferson Davis Park' to keep alive the memorialisation of 'Confederate heritage' in the local community. As the SVC state, it is for education and awareness, that they created the park, so it is relevant to this local community and still controversial as the recent vandalism of the marker stone shows. The I-5 corridor is the major Portland to Seattle connection and the prominent placement of this monument abutting and facing the interstate is no accident. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)...and? That is, is this a significant enough aspect of the community to merit mention, or more than passing mention, in the article? Or is it, as JfI suggests, something of a coatrack? Me, I suspect Lewis & Clarke might be a more significant part of its history than antifa. Anmccaff (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously has meant something to someone as it was mentioned on this page sometime ago. My only intention is to give this entry context as to why, and how, as someone already placed the who into this article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentioned" is not the same thing as "lit up in neon." Anmccaff (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be better to actually 'name' the 'land' and tell a bit of the story of why it is there? As for 'lit up in neon', the lighting at the park is not 'neon' as you can see when you drive down the major I-5 corridor. It would be different if the SVC has placed the park in some back corner of the town, but they chose to push it into everyone's face by the prominent placement next to and facing Interstate 5. The SVC made this decision and for that prominence along it should be mentioned in full; but that is only a small part of it, with the recent vandalism of the park by Rose City Antifa, it shows that this is still of note as a controversial local issue and for that it should be expanded. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I would think that that would be appropriate at an article about the whole removal movement, or, given RCA's actions, at one on slacktivism. The limited mention in the article is more than enough. Anmccaff (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so it is so major that it deserves it's own article, but so minor that it is the Jefferson Davis Park does not even deserve to be called by name on this page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you obviously don't see...or at least don't see what others do. Who said anything about major, or worthy of its own article? It might...note that's "might"... be worthy of a few lines elsewhere Or maybe not. Anmccaff (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I would think that that would be appropriate at an article about the whole removal movement,..." -Anmccaff I see.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that "movement" would be Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. The only "movement" a handful of would-be strasserites pouring paint on a rock suggests is "bowel". Anmccaff (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, nothing to see [23], just move along. It's not controversial [24] and it's all recent made up stuff [25], so why fight so hard not to even include the name of the park on the current section, right, nothing to see, move along.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the first cite you posted explicitly stated it is not in Ridgefield? Anmccaff (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...as does the second... Anmccaff (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

....while the third doesn't even mention Ridgdefield. Not surprising, because the rock appears to have been in Vancouver then. Perhaps you should create an article called Vaguely in the vicinity of Ridgefield, Washington, and WP:COATrack that?

This is my point exactly. We have a piece of property (that may not even be in the city that is the subject of the article, but just for the sake of this specific argument I'm making here, let's say it is) that contains some small monuments, one of which was moved here after a controversy in another city (said controversy being on topic but of questionable relevance for that other city, not this one). At some point these monuments were vandalized (seems pretty clearly WP:NOTNEWS). Subsequent to that, an obscure (not mentioned in the county's article, not elected, not having any legal authority at all) commission decided these monuments no longer belonged on some non-notable list (again, possibly on topic to the county's article, but of extremely dubious relevance). The only possible home for this would be the article on the highway the monuments came from, but as a member of WP:USRD, I personally would oppose it there too, as clearly COATRACK. John from Idegon (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24398 NW Maplecrest Rd, which appears to be the site of this thing, give or take, is completely out of Ridgfield's city limits, but possibly inside the same zip code. Anmccaff (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the local sources connect Jefferson Davis Park with Ridgefield WA: [26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Even the Park's Facebook Page puts it in Ridgefield [33] as it is within the Postal Zip Code for Ridgefield; and note that it was the request from the City of Ridgefield that asked the Clark County Historic Register to remove the Historic Highway marker for Jefferson Davis Park.[34]. In short, it is integral to the city of Ridefield and to the identity of the community.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, the only connection between the City of Ridgewood -that's the subject of this article, not a Zip Code- is a fairly low-key request to remove a Historic Highway marker? Anmccaff (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NO, that is just one of the many connections, like the city government asking the county Historical Society to remove the markers and park from it's listing because of the type of notoriety it brings to the town, the fact that even the groups Facebook page puts it as Ridgefield, the fact that the local media lists the Jefferson Davis Park as Ridgefield, etc., etc., etc.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is to say that the only connection between this and the City of Ridgefield is that the City of Ridgefield wants to make it clear there is no connection. The park is outta town, and out of their control or influence. So why, aside from slacktivist coatracking, should Wiki be making a connection we know to be false? Anmccaff (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is to say the local sources put Jefferson Davis Park within Ridgefield WA, if technically just outside of it's exact boundary line: [35][36][37][38][39][40][41] Even the Park's Facebook Page puts it in Ridgefield [42] and the City of Ridgefield government is into what happens at the Jefferson Davis Park as it brings unwanted problems to this otherwise quite little town along Interstate 5 in Southwestern Washington State. In fact, it is that prominent location along I-5 that keeps it in middle of current events, almost 30yrs after the issue started in nearby Vancouver.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be what is generally called a lie, unless "about a third of a mile, as the crow flies" is your idea of "just outside"; as the roads go, though, it's more like two miles to reach anything but a hayfield. It's out of town, the city government has no influence or control over it. You can drive every single street in Ridgefield proper, and not even see it once. It's nothing to do with the subject of the article, except for the mistaken impression that somehow the town -does- have something to do with it.... a misconception which you are deliberately fostering. Anmccaff (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the Park's facebook page[43]:

   24024 NW Maplecrest Rd
   Ridgefield, Washington

You seem to be the only one concerned about how feet and yards inside or outside the city limits; this is odd considering even the Ridgefield city government doesn't care when they asked the county historical society to remove the marker stones in the park from it's registry. If your only concern is that it Jefferson Davis Park lay in the unincorporated section of Ridgefield, that is not reasonable grounds for removing all listing of it as it does seem important to the city and the general community.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anmccaff is not the only person here pointing out the issue of this whatever it is's location. As a matter of fact, it is part of the reason everyone opposing inclusion (which is to say everybody but you, C. W. Gilmore) has mentioned for their opposition. And as an aside, Facebook is not a reliable source for much of anything. (The only things I've ever seen cited to Facebook are those very few things we require personal claims for in BLP articles (eg, religion and sexual orientation), and then only to an official verified celeberty FB page, and even then only as a last resort). Lastly, your poorly constructed RfC question presupposes that content will exist on this in the article. You focused on the expansion of the existing section. The removal of the remaining portion predating your edits that I initially reverted are not under discussion and there is nothing precluding their removal (for which there is a consensus) in the RfC below. You are at 3RR at restoring that now. I'd suggest you cease. John from Idegon (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon, as you have brought your cavalry in from as far away as Swastika, Ontario, the local natives are one again at the disadvantage, for now. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Please close this poorly constructed RfC. See my reasoning below. John from Idegon (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the current 'Recent History' section renamed Jefferson Davis Park and be expanded to include more detail regarding the park, monuments, and controversy surrounding them?

Suggested re-write

• • In 2007, a plot of private land in Ridgefield directly adjoining busy Interstate 5 was purchased for $15,000 by the Pacific Northwest chapter of Sons of Confederate Veterans, a nonprofit whose members have ancestral ties to Confederate soldiers. Three Confederate flags fly at "Jefferson Davis Park", along with two stone markers honoring Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy. ^[1][2][3] Stone markers had come from both ends of the state designating Highway 99 the "Jeff Davis Highway" were erected in the 1930s by the Daughters of the Confederacy, with State approval. They were removed in 2002 through the efforts of State Representative Hans Dunshee and city officials, and after it was discovered that the highway was never officially designated to memorialize Davis by the State.^[4] Clark County Historic Preservation Commission on October 2, 2017, voted unanimously to remove the granite highway marker from its local heritage list.^[5]

Please give your input, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• Support I support this expansion. The section header should be more descriptive of the private park, and the entry should be expanded to reflect the long running (since 1998) controversy surrounding the Jefferson Davis Highway markers that were removed from public land over ten years ago.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Support Strongly Oppose No, as mentioned above. A major expansion would be coatracking. Anmccaff (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cites provided by C. W. Gilmore in the section directly above refute the idea that this site is even in Ridgefield at all. Anmccaff (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose and this should be closed - this RfC is procedurally incorrect. The question should be decided collaberatively, and should not reflect only one position. As raised above, I would ask the bit about the park be removed completely. Without the obviously WP:COATRACK , WP:RECENT, WP:WEIGHT violating content on the removal of the monuments, all there is is a not reliably sourced bit on an inconsequential private monument. John from Idegon (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And to add a bit, it seems sources are divergent as to whether this is even in the city that is the subject of the article, here. John from Idegon (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who suggested the OP open an RfC (see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Changes_to_article_and_consensus.2C_how_long_should_a_discussion_stay_open_on_Talk_page.3F for context). I express no opinion on the content issue.

@John from Idegon: I do not see what in WP:RFC or elsewhere supports for your assertion that RfC questions should be decided [collaboratively]. The RfC statement should be neutral, true; but that RfC seems OK to me in that regard (excluding the fact that there was no "short statement" form, which was easy to fix, cf. this edit). It does not get any more neutral than I propose [this] instead of [that] in the article (if the problem is the absence of the text of the status quo version, again, that's easy to fix). There might be other reasons to shut down the RfC (e.g. if that is the 10th time the same question was asked and consensus was against each former time), but that the statement should be negotiated beforehand is not one of them (if that was a reason to torpedo an RfC, no RfC on contentious topics would ever take place). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck everything related to that. Thanks, Tigraan John from Idegon (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, they are set on white washing everything from the record.[44][45] no matter what the local resources, news articles and view of the Jefferson Davis Park @ I-5. Their will oppose even what little was here before.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose including this content. Let's see, somebody is flying Confederate flags on a private lot within view of a freeway, and calling it a "park"? And this flag lot is outside the city limits? How can that possibly be appropriate encyclopedic content for our article about the city where this private flag display is not located? That seems bizarre to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]